New York Times' David Kirkpatrick Complains the Muslim Brotherhood's Good Faith Was Never Tested

The Muslim Brotherhood repeatedly showed that it could not be trusted. There is nothing in its past, its ideology or its actions to suggest otherwise.

Hamas militants hold a poster depicting Morsy of the Muslim Brotherhood as they celebrate in Gaza City after he was declared Egypt's president

If you see a "big picture" article on Egypt in the New York Times, chances are that it's from the very slimy David Kirkpatrick whose latest magnum opus insisted that the violence could have been averted if Muslim Brotherhood leaders had been freed. The Point has taken apart some of his pieces before. But Twitter feeds are less edited than articles.

egypt gov. statement condemns alleged pro-Muslim Brotherhood bias of Western journalists while violence/detention of foreign press surges

Of course there's nothing alleged about it. Kirkpatrick's own feed is an example of cheerleading and dishonest reporting. It's the same carnage-and-crowds coverage of the Arab Spring days.

— David D. Kirkpatrick (@ddknyt) August 17, 2013

@shadihamid @peterbakernyt a confidence building 1st step; whether the MB were in good faith was never tested

— David D. Kirkpatrick (@ddknyt) August 17, 2013

To which the reply was

@ddknyt @shadihamid @peterbakernyt Plenty of evidence MB didn't act in good faith. A whole year of cheating Egypt by breeding hatred.

— Mohammad Fheili (@MIFheili1960) August 17, 2013

But David Kirkpatrick is acting as if the Morsi days never happened. Freeing Muslim Brotherhood leaders is not a confidence building measure. There's no confidence to build. Just a straight conflict.

The Muslim Brotherhood repeatedly showed that it could not be trusted. There is nothing in its past, its ideology or its actions to suggest otherwise.

David Kirkpatrick knows that quite well. But like the rest of the media, he is earnestly pretending otherwise, while slanting stories in a direction favorable to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Share